equivalences of k3 surfaces and orientation ii the ... · group of orientation preserving...

Equivalencesof K3

Surfaces andOrientation II

Paolo Stellari Equivalences of K3 Surfaces and Orientation IIThe Projective Case

Paolo Stellari

Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Enriques”Universita degli Studi di Milano

Joint work with: D. Huybrechts and E. Macrı (arXiv:0710.1645) and E. Macrı (arXiv:0804.2552)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

Outline

1 Derived Torelli TheoremMotivationsThe statement

2 Ideas from the proofThe strategyThe categorical settingDeforming kernelsConcluding the argument

3 Infinitesimal Derived Torelli TheoremFirst order deformationsThe statementSketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

DerivedTorelliTheoremMotivations

The statement

Ideas fromthe proofThe strategy

The categoricalsetting

Deforming kernels

Concluding theargument

InfinitesimalDerivedTorelliTheoremFirst orderdeformations

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The problem

Let X be a K3 surface.

Main problem

Describe the group Aut (Db(X )) of exact autoequivalencesof the triangulated category

Db(X ) := DbCoh(OX -Mod).

Remark (Orlov)Such a description is available when X is an abelian surface(actually an abelian variety).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The problem

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The problem

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The problem

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivations: automorphisms

Theorem (Torelli Theorem)Let X and Y be K3 surfaces. Suppose that there exists aHodge isometry

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

which maps the class of an ample line bundle on X into theample cone of Y . Then there exists a unique isomorphismf : X ∼−→ Y such that f∗ = g.

Lattice theory + Hodge structures + ample cone

RemarkThe automorphism is uniquely determined.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Theorem (Torelli Theorem)Let X and Y be K3 surfaces.

Suppose that there exists aHodge isometry

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

which maps the class of an ample line bundle on X into theample cone of Y .

Then there exists a unique isomorphismf : X ∼−→ Y such that f∗ = g.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Lattice theory

+ Hodge structures + ample cone

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Lattice theory + Hodge structures

+ ample cone

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

g : H2(X , Z) → H2(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivations: diffeomorphisms

All K3 surfaces are diffeomorphic. Fix X and letΛ := H2(X , Z).

Theorem (Borcea, Donaldson)Consider the natural map

ρ : Diff(X ) −→ O(H2(X , Z)).

Then im (ρ) = O+(H2(X , Z)), where O+(H2(X , Z)) is thegroup of orientation preserving isometries.

RemarkThe kernel of ρ is not known!

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

ρ : Diff(X ) −→ O(H2(X , Z)).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

ρ : Diff(X ) −→ O(H2(X , Z)).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

ρ : Diff(X ) −→ O(H2(X , Z)).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Orlov’s result

Derived Torelli Theorem (Mukai, Orlov)Let X and Y be smooth projective K3 surfaces. Then thefollowing are equivalent:

1 There exists an equivalence Φ : Db(X ) ∼= Db(Y ).2 There exists a Hodge isometry H(X , Z) ∼= H(Y , Z).

The equivalence Φ induces an action on cohomology

Db(X )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

Φ // Db(Y )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

td(Y )

H(X , Z)ΦH // H(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Orlov’s result

Db(X )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

Φ // Db(Y )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

td(Y )

H(X , Z)ΦH // H(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Orlov’s result

1 There exists an equivalence Φ : Db(X ) ∼= Db(Y ).

2 There exists a Hodge isometry H(X , Z) ∼= H(Y , Z).

Db(X )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

Φ // Db(Y )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

td(Y )

H(X , Z)ΦH // H(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Orlov’s result

Db(X )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

Φ // Db(Y )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

td(Y )

H(X , Z)ΦH // H(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Orlov’s result

Db(X )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

Φ // Db(Y )

v(−)=ch(−)·√

td(Y )

H(X , Z)ΦH // H(Y , Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Main problem

QuestionCan we understand better the action induced oncohomology by an equivalence?

Orientation: Let σ be a generator of H2,0(X ) and ω aKahler class. Then 〈Re(σ), Im(σ), 1− ω2/2, ω〉 is a positivefour-space in H(X , R) with a natural orientation.

ProblemThe isometry j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 is not orientationpreserving. Is it induced by an autoequivalence?

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Main problem

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The statement

Main Theorem (Huybrechts–Macrı–S.)

Given a Hodge isometry g : H(X , Z) → H(Y , Z), then thereexists and equivalence Φ : Db(X ) → Db(Y ) such thatg = ΦH if and only if g is orientation preserving.

Szendroi’s Conjecture is true: In terms ofautoequivalences, this yields a surjective morphism

Aut (Db(X )) O+(H(X , Z)),

where O+(H(X , Z)) is the group of orientation preservingHodge isometries.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The statement

Aut (Db(X )) O+(H(X , Z)),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The statement

Aut (Db(X )) O+(H(X , Z)),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The statement

Aut (Db(X )) O+(H(X , Z)),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The ‘easy’ implication

The statement: If g is orientation preserving than it lifts toan equivance.

A result of Hosono–Lian–Oguiso–Yau (heavily relayingon Mukai/Orlov’s Derived Torelli Theorem) shows that,up to composing with the isometry j , every isometrycan be lifted to an equivalence.

Since we know that j is not orientation preserving weconclude using the following:

Remark (Huybrechts-S.)All known equivalences (and autoequivalences) areorientation preserving.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The non-orientation Hodge isometry

Take any projective K3 surface X .

Consider the non-orientation preserving Hodgeisometry

j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 .

Since one implication is already true, to prove the maintheorem, it is enough to show that j is not induced by aFourier–Mukai equivalence.

We proceed by contradiction assuming that there existsE ∈ Db(X × X ) such that (ΦE)H = j .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

j := (id)H0⊕H4 ⊕ (− id)H2 .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The idea of the proof

For some particular K3 surfaces we know that j is notinduced by any Fourier–Mukai equivalence: K3surfaces with trivial Picard group.

Deform the K3 surface (along a line) in the modulispace such that generically we recover the behaviour ofa generic K3 surface.

Deform the kernel of the equivalence accordingly.

Derive a contradiction using the generic case.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Formal deformations

Take R := C[[t ]] to be the ring of power series in t with fieldof fractions K := C((t)).

Define Rn := C[[t ]]/(tn+1). Then Spec (Rn) ⊂ Spec (Rn+1).

For X a smooth projective variety, a formal deformation is aproper formal R-scheme

π : X → Spf(R)

given by an inductive system of schemes Xn → Spec (Rn)(smooth and proper over Rn) and such that

Xn+1 ×Rn+1 Spec (Rn) ∼= Xn.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Formal deformations

π : X → Spf(R)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Formal deformations

π : X → Spf(R)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Formal deformations

π : X → Spf(R)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The categories

There exist sequences

Coh0(X ×R X ′) → Coh(X ×R X ′) → Coh((X ×R X ′)K )

Coh0(X ) → Coh(X ) → Coh((X )K )

where Coh0(X ×R X ′) and Coh0(X ) are the abeliancategories of sheaves supported on X × X and Xrespectively.

In this setting we also have the sequences

Db0(X ×R X ′) → Db

Coh(OX×RX ′-Mod) → Db((X ×R X ′)K )

Db0(X ) → Db

Coh(OX -Mod) → Db(XK )

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The categories

Db0(X ×R X ′) → Db

Db0(X ) → Db

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The categories

Db0(X ×R X ′) → Db

Db0(X ) → Db

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The key example: the twistor space

Let us focus now on the case when X is a K3 surface.

Definition

A Kahler class ω ∈ H1,1(X , R) is called very general if thereis no non-trivial integral class 0 6= α ∈ H1,1(X , Z) orthogonalto ω, i.e. ω⊥ ∩ H1,1(X , Z) = 0.

Take the twistor space X(ω) of X determined by the choiceof a very general Kahler class ω ∈ KX ∩ Pic (X )⊗ R:

π : X(ω) → P(ω).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Definition

π : X(ω) → P(ω).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Definition

π : X(ω) → P(ω).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Definition

π : X(ω) → P(ω).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

RemarkX(ω) parametrizes the complex structures ‘compatible’ withω.

Choosing a local parameter t around 0 ∈ P(ω) we get aformal deformation X → Spf(R).

More precisely:

Xn := X(ω)× Spec (Rn),

form an inductive system and give rise to a formalR-scheme

π : X → Spf(R),

which is the formal neighbourhood of X in X(ω).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More precisely:

π : X → Spf(R),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More precisely:

π : X → Spf(R),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More precisely:

π : X → Spf(R),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The generic category

PropositionIf X is a K3 surface and X is as before, thenDb(XK ) ∼= Db(Coh(XK )). Moreover, Db(XK ) is a genericK -linear K3 category.

A K -linear category is a K3 category if it contains at least aspherical object and the shift by 2 is the Serre functor.

A K3 category is generic if, up to shift, it contains only onespherical object.

RemarkIn this setting, the unique spherical object is (OX )K , theimage of OX .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalences

As before, given F ∈ DbCoh(OX×RX ′-Mod), we denote by FK

the natural image in the category Db((X ×R X ′)K ).

Proposition

Let E ∈ Db(X ×R X ′) be such that E = i∗E . Then E and EKare kernels of Fourier–Mukai equivalences.

Here we denoted by i : X × X → X ×R X ′ the naturalinclusion.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalences

Proposition

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalences

Proposition

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalences

Proposition

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The first order deformation

The equivalence ΦE induces a morphim

ΦHHE : HH2(X ) → HH2(X ).

Proposition

Let v1 ∈ H1(X , TX ) be the Kodaira–Spencer class of firstorder deformation given by a twistor space X(ω) as above.Then

v ′1 := ΦHHE (v1) ∈ H1(X , TX ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition

v ′1 := ΦHHE (v1) ∈ H1(X , TX ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition

v ′1 := ΦHHE (v1) ∈ H1(X , TX ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Let X ′1 be the first order deformation corresponding to v ′1.

Using results of Toda one gets the following conclusion

Proposition (Toda)

For v1 and v ′1 as before, there exists E1 ∈ Db(X1 ×R1 X ′1)

such thati∗1E1 = E0 := E .

Here i1 : X0 ×C X0 → X ′1 ×R1 X ′

1 is the natural inclusion.

Hence there is a first order deformation of E .

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition (Toda)

Here i1 : X0 ×C X0 → X ′1 ×R1 X ′

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition (Toda)

Here i1 : X0 ×C X0 → X ′1 ×R1 X ′

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition (Toda)

Here i1 : X0 ×C X0 → X ′1 ×R1 X ′

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Proposition (Toda)

Here i1 : X0 ×C X0 → X ′1 ×R1 X ′

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Higher order deformations

More generally

We construct, at any order n, an analytic deformation X ′n

such that there exists En ∈ Db(Xn ×Rn X ′n), with

i∗nEn = En−1.

Main difficulties1 Write the obstruction to deforming complexes in terms

of Atiyah–Kodaira classes.2 Show that the obstruction is zero.

Our approach imitates the first order case (using relativeHochschild homology).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More generally

i∗nEn = En−1.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More generally

i∗nEn = En−1.

Main difficulties

1 Write the obstruction to deforming complexes in termsof Atiyah–Kodaira classes.

2 Show that the obstruction is zero.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More generally

i∗nEn = En−1.

of Atiyah–Kodaira classes.

2 Show that the obstruction is zero.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More generally

i∗nEn = En−1.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

More generally

i∗nEn = En−1.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The generic fiber

Use the generic analytic caseThere exist integers n and m such that the Fourier–Mukaiequivalence

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

has kernel G ∈ Coh(X ×R X ′).

RemarkThis shows that the autoequivalences of the derivedcategory Db(XK ) behaves like the derived category of acomplex K3 surface with trivial Picard group.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The generic fiber

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The generic fiber

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Ideas from the proof

DefinitionA K -rational point of π : X → Spf(R) is an integral formalsubscheme Z ⊆ X which is flat of relative dimension zeroand such that π|Z : Z → Spf(R) is an isomorphism.

One constructs a locally finite stability condition σ onDb(XK ) such that, if F ∈ Db(XK ) is σ-stable andsemi-rigid with End XK (F) ∼= K , then up to shift F is aK -rational point.

An object F ∈ Db(XK ) is semi-rigid if Ext 1K (F ,F) ∼= K⊕2.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Using this stability condition, one proves that there areintegers n and m such that the Fourier–Mukaiequivalence

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

send K -rational points to K -rational points.

One shows that if a Fourier–Mukai equivalence sendsK -rational points to K -rational points, then its kernel Gis a sheaf, i.e.

G ∈ Coh(X ×R X ′).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

G ∈ Coh(X ×R X ′).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

T n(OX )K

ΦEK [m]

G ∈ Coh(X ×R X ′).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Key ingredients

In the previous proof we use that (OX )K is the unique, up toshift, spherical object in Db(XK ).

In particular, we use that given a locally finite stabilitycondition σ on Db(XK ), there exists an integer n such that inthe stability condition T n

(OX )K(σ) all K -rational points are

stable with the same phase.

RemarkNotice that for our proof we use stability conditions in a verymild form. We just use a specific stability condition in whichwe can classify all semi-rigid stable objects.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Key ingredients

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Key ingredients

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Key ingredients

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Properties of G1 G0 := i∗G is a sheaf in Coh(X × X ).2 The natural morphism

(ΦG0)H : H∗(X , Q) → H∗(X , Q)

is such that (ΦG0)H = (ΦE)H = j .

For the second part, we show that G0 and E induce thesame action on the Grothendieck groups and have thesame Mukai vector!

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Properties of G

1 G0 := i∗G is a sheaf in Coh(X × X ).2 The natural morphism

(ΦG0)H : H∗(X , Q) → H∗(X , Q)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Properties of G1 G0 := i∗G is a sheaf in Coh(X × X ).

2 The natural morphism

(ΦG0)H : H∗(X , Q) → H∗(X , Q)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

(ΦG0)H : H∗(X , Q) → H∗(X , Q)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

(ΦG0)H : H∗(X , Q) → H∗(X , Q)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

The contradiction is now obtained using the followinglemma:

LemmaIf G ∈ Coh(X × X ), then (ΦG)H 6= j .

Warning!We have not proved that E is a (shift of a) sheaf! We havejust proved that the action in cohomology is the same as theone of a sheaf!

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The conclusion

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivation

There exists an explicit description of the first orderdeformations of the abelian category of coherent sheaveson a smooth projective variety (Toda).

The existence of equivalences between the derivedcategories of smooth projective K3 surfaces is detected bythe existence of special isometries of the totalcohomologies.

QuestionCan we get the same result for derived categories of firstorder deformations of K3 surfaces using special isometriesbetween ‘deformations’ of the Hodge and lattice structureson the total cohomologies?

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivation

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivation

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Motivation

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Hochschild–Kostant–Rosenberg

The Hochschild–Kostant–Rosenberg isomorphism

L∆∗XO∆X

∼−→⊕

ΩiX [i]

yields the isomorphisms

IXHKR : HH∗(X ) → HΩ∗(X ) :=

HΩi(X )

andIHKRX : HH∗(X ) → HT∗(X ) :=

HTi(X ).

One then defines the graded isomorphisms

IXK = (td(X )1/2 ∧ (−)) IX

HKR IKX = (td(X )−1/2y(−)) IHKR

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

L∆∗XO∆X

∼−→⊕

ΩiX [i]

IXHKR : HH∗(X ) → HΩ∗(X ) :=

HΩi(X )

HTi(X ).

IXK = (td(X )1/2 ∧ (−)) IX

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

L∆∗XO∆X

∼−→⊕

ΩiX [i]

IXHKR : HH∗(X ) → HΩ∗(X ) :=

HΩi(X )

IHKRX : HH∗(X ) → HT∗(X ) :=

HTi(X ).

IXK = (td(X )1/2 ∧ (−)) IX

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

L∆∗XO∆X

∼−→⊕

ΩiX [i]

IXHKR : HH∗(X ) → HΩ∗(X ) :=

HΩi(X )

HTi(X ).

IXK = (td(X )1/2 ∧ (−)) IX

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

L∆∗XO∆X

∼−→⊕

ΩiX [i]

IXHKR : HH∗(X ) → HΩ∗(X ) :=

HΩi(X )

HTi(X ).

IXK = (td(X )1/2 ∧ (−)) IX

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The categorical setting (Toda)

Given a smooth projective variety X and for any v ∈ HH2(X ),Toda constructed explicitety the abelian category

Coh(X , v)

which is the first order deformation of Coh(X ) in thedirection v .

One also have an isomorphism J : HH2(X1) → HH2(X1)such that

(IHKRX1

J (IHKRX1

)−1)(α, β, γ) = (α,−β, γ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Coh(X , v)

(IHKRX1

J (IHKRX1

)−1)(α, β, γ) = (α,−β, γ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Coh(X , v)

(IHKRX1

J (IHKRX1

)−1)(α, β, γ) = (α,−β, γ).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The Infinitesimal Derived Torelli Theorem

Theorem (Macrı–S.)Let X1 and X2 be smooth complex projective K3 surfacesand let vi ∈ HH2(Xi), with i = 1, 2. Then the following areequivalent:

1 There exists a Fourier–Mukai equivalence

ΦeE : Db(X1, v1)∼−→ Db(X2, v2)

with E ∈ Dperf(X1 × X2,−J(v1) v2).

2 There exists an orientation preserving effective Hodgeisometry

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

ΦeE : Db(X1, v1)∼−→ Db(X2, v2)

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

ΦeE : Db(X1, v1)∼−→ Db(X2, v2)

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

For X a K3, v ∈ HH2(X ) and σX is a generator for HH2(X ),let

w := IXK (σX ) + εIX

K (σX v) ∈ H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2).

The free Z[ε]/(ε2)-module of finite rank H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2)is endowed with:

1 The Z[ε]/(ε2)-linear extension of the generalized Mukaipairing 〈−,−〉M .

2 A weight-2 decomposition on H(X , Z)⊗ C[ε]/(ε2)

H2,0(X , v) := C[ε]/(ε2) · w H0,2(X , v) := H2,0(X , v)

and H1,1(X , v) := (H2,0(X , v)⊕ H0,2(X , v))⊥.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

K (σX v) ∈ H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2).

H2,0(X , v) := C[ε]/(ε2) · w H0,2(X , v) := H2,0(X , v)

and H1,1(X , v) := (H2,0(X , v)⊕ H0,2(X , v))⊥.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

K (σX v) ∈ H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2).

H2,0(X , v) := C[ε]/(ε2) · w H0,2(X , v) := H2,0(X , v)

and H1,1(X , v) := (H2,0(X , v)⊕ H0,2(X , v))⊥.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

K (σX v) ∈ H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2).

H2,0(X , v) := C[ε]/(ε2) · w H0,2(X , v) := H2,0(X , v)

and H1,1(X , v) := (H2,0(X , v)⊕ H0,2(X , v))⊥.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

K (σX v) ∈ H(X , Z)⊗ Z[ε]/(ε2).

H2,0(X , v) := C[ε]/(ε2) · w H0,2(X , v) := H2,0(X , v)

and H1,1(X , v) := (H2,0(X , v)⊕ H0,2(X , v))⊥.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

This gives the infinitesimal Mukai lattice of X with respect tov , which is denoted by H(X , v , Z).

The isometry

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z)

which can be decomposed as g = g0 + εg0, where g0 is anHodge isometry of the Mukai lattices is called effective.

An effective isometry is orientation preserving if g0preserves the orientation of the four-space.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

The isometry

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

The isometry

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

The structures

The isometry

g : H(X1, v1, Z)∼−→ H(X2, v2, Z)

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Outline

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity I

The first key ingredient (of independent interest) is thefollowing:

Theorem (Macrı–S.)Let X1 and X2 be smooth complex projective varieties andlet E ∈ Db(X1 × X2). Then the following diagram

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE )H // H(X2, C)

commutes.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity I

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE )H // H(X2, C)

commutes.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity I

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE )H // H(X2, C)

commutes.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

Using that for K3 surfaces H0,2 is 1-dimensional and theprevious result, one get the following commutative diagram(for a Fourier–Mukai equivalence ΦE ):

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH

(−)σX1

HH∗(X2)

(−)(ΦE )HH(σX1)

HH∗(X1)

(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE)H // H(X2, C),

where σX1 is a generator of HH2(X1).

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH

(−)σX1

HH∗(X2)

(−)(ΦE )HH(σX1)

HH∗(X1)

(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE)H // H(X2, C),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

HH∗(X1)(ΦE)HH

(−)σX1

HH∗(X2)

(−)(ΦE )HH(σX1)

HH∗(X1)

(ΦE)HH //

HH∗(X2)

H(X1, C)(ΦE)H // H(X2, C),

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

Using the previous commutativities, we could also clarify theproof of our Main Theorem.

In particular, one could simplify the hypothesis about thechoice of the Kahler class giving rise to the twistor space.

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

Equivalencesof K3

Paolo Stellari

The statement

Deforming kernels

The statement

Sketch of the proof

Commutativity II

equivalences of k3 surfaces and orientation ii the ... · group of orientation preserving...

Documents